WulFKrigan's page

Another counter to this is to remember that the other players can't see the character. Have the invisible player pull his mini off the table, sit next to you, and tell you where he is moving.

It will make getting him healed, buffed, or excluded from AoE spells a nightmare.

That said, I would expect a straight up perception check to work. I think "because mythic" isn't a very strong logical argument.

It would imply any ability that could normally detect the invisible can get a "mythic" association and then see this.

Mythic See Invisible as one example.

I feel like the original language of Lunge was supposed to be for the full round.

I read Monkey Lunge and it seems to me like they are saying "give up your standard action and get to make AoO at +5' without AC penalties".

I read Mythic Lunge and it seems to me like they are saying "Expend a mythic power and negate a -2 penalty and get a +2 to AoO."

Now, it could be wishful thinking. But it could also be bad writing.

I see 3 charms. 2 imply that Lunge should interact with AoOs. 1 says it doesn't.

Either the chain for lunge is incredibly narrow, the two authors of Monkey Lunge and Mythic Lunge didn't understand how Lunge works. Or Lunge's language doesn't clearly reflect how the feat should work.

I think it's the latter but, without an FAQ clarification, I concede that it is also the weakest argument.

So let's see if it is too powerful.

Enlarge person is a level 1 spell. It gives you +5' reach. +2 Str. -2 Dex. and a few other effects for several minutes.

Lunge (liberally interpreted) gives you +5' reach for -2 AC (similar to -4 Dex) and for a turn.

Seem fairly even to me. So is Lunge (liberally interpreted) over powered?

Is abnormal reach considered "natural reach" since it is a permanent effect?

Let's say I have a 4th level Black Blood Bloodrager.

She is medium sized but has the abnormal reach bloodline power.

She can reach 10' without a knife.

But she puts down the knife and picks up a polearm. How far can she reach now?

The weapon reach rules state that reach weapon doubles natural reach. The only place "natural reach" is cited is on the size chart. But it only makes sense that if something permanently alters your anatomy, it is now part of your natural reach.

So can she reach 20' or only 15'?

So a level 1 warpriest gets weapon focus. But the details on this are unclear.

A warpriest is a 3/4 BAB class, so they don't get +1 BAB. This means they get weapon focus despite the BAB requirements of the feat.

Does this mean that a warpriest can take a weapon they are not proficient in as well? If yes, does that provide proficiency?

By my read it sounds like you can take a non-proficient weapon and use it at -4 (lack of proficiency) +1 (weapon focus) = -3.

Is that accurate to RAW? Any PFS exceptions/FAQs to this?

How does this stack up against True Seeing? Both texts use language that specifically negates the other.

Undetectable: can't be detected or scryed by any method.

True Seeing: see all things as they actually are.

This creates a bit of a contradiction here. Any RAW or RAI to clarify?

I'm tempted to think that mythic>non-mythic, but that Mythic True Seeing would still see an Undetectable item user.